Dataset Information

A Comparative View of Reported Adverse Effects of Statins in Social Media, Regulatory Data, Drug Information Databases and Systematic Reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There are few studies assessing how data on adverse drug events from consumers on social media compare with other sources.

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the consistency of adverse event data of statin medications from social media as compared with other sources.

Methods

We collected data on the adverse events of statins from Twitter, the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), drug information databases (DIDs) and systematic reviews. We manually annotated 12,649 tweets collected between June 2013 and August 2018. We collected 45,447 reports from FAERS, 10,415 from MHRA, identified 17 systematic reviews with relevant data and extracted data from Facts and Comparisons^® and Clinical Pharmacology^®. We compared the proportion, relative frequencies and rank of each category of adverse event from each source using MedDRA^® primary System Organ Class codes.

Results

Compared with other sources, patients on social media are proportionally far more likely to complain about musculoskeletal symptoms than other adverse events. Most adverse events showed a high level of agreement between Twitter and regulatory data. DIDs tend to demonstrate similar patterns but not as strongly. Systematic reviews tend to examine pre-specified adverse events or those reported by trial investigators.

Conclusions

Combining the data from multiple sources, albeit challenging, may provide a broader safety profile of any medication. Systematically collected social media reports may be able to contribute information on the most pertinent adverse effects to patients.

SUBMITTER: Golder S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7847442 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient online drug reviews are a resource for other patients seeking information about the practical benefits and drawbacks of drug therapies. Patient reviews may also serve as a source of postmarketing safety data that are more user-friendly than regulatory databases. However, the reliability of online reviews has been questioned, because they do not undergo professional review and lack means of verification. OBJECTIVE:We evaluated online reviews of hypnotic medications, because they are commonly used and their therapeutic efficacy is particularly amenable to patient self-evaluation. Our primary objective was to compare the types and frequencies of adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) with analogous information in patient reviews on the consumer health website Drugs.com. The secondary objectives were to describe patient reports of efficacy and adverse events and assess the influence of medication cost, effectiveness, and adverse events on user ratings of hypnotic medications. METHODS:Patient ratings and narratives were retrieved from 1407 reviews on Drugs.com between February 2007 and March 2018 for eszopiclone, ramelteon, suvorexant, zaleplon, and zolpidem. Reviews were coded to preferred terms in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. These reviews were compared to 5916 cases in the FAERS database from January 2015 to September 2017. RESULTS:Similar adverse events were reported to both Drugs.com and FAERS. Both resources identified a lack of efficacy as a common complaint for all five drugs. Both resources revealed that amnesia commonly occurs with eszopiclone, zaleplon, and zolpidem, while nightmares commonly occur with suvorexant. Compared to FAERS, online reviews of zolpidem reported a much higher frequency of amnesia and partial sleep activities. User ratings were highest for zolpidem and lowest for suvorexant. Statistical analyses showed that patient ratings are influenced by considerations of efficacy and adverse events, while drug cost is unimportant. CONCLUSIONS:For hypnotic medications, online patient reviews and FAERS emphasized similar adverse events. Online reviewers rated drugs based on perception of efficacy and adverse events. We conclude that online patient reviews of hypnotics are a valid source that can supplement traditional adverse event reporting systems.